on the July 10 of 2012 Viacom sent a letter to direct tv saying that if they did ndt force costermers to pay More to watch they would pull their channels direct tv refused and so Viacom pull their channels from direct tv http://www.youtube.com... this is stupid Viacom should not be doing this sure economic times are tough but is this really necessary ill go deeper if you accept my debate

I'm probably biting off more than I can chew here thanks to a pesky mouse virus and my work schedule, but I'll do my best to update my arguments on time, if not particularly early.

As my opponent hasn't listed rules or framework, I'd like to propose the following rules/guidlines and I hope he's ok with them.1.) round forfeits are not counted as concessions, but all arguments made by the other side extend as they won't be negated2.) No semantics or trolling, this will result in the loss of the conduct point.3.) Definitions will be provided as we bring up words we think might have different views, or when requested by the other side.

And as always when this is the case, I'd like to add the disclaimer that the arguments I'll be bringing up in the future are more than likely not my own beliefs, and I am simply playing the devil's advocate here.

ok direct tv is completely innocent on this you see according to the when direct tv drop's website they said 26 channels were dropped this is true if your counting the hd and sd channels together second of all for Viacom removed the daily show and the Colbert report off hulu temporally and third Viacom putting the blame on direct tv for costermores to switch so they cold lose money this is not right Viacom is taking viewers hostage in order to pay more according to dierecttvpromise.com I'm mathew.palmeri and I approve this message

My argument is a simple one, so I'll keep it quick (it doesn't hurt that I can only type for five minutes without having to get off due to a virus). In America, we do our best to maintain a capitalistic free market. In this market, businesses can set their own prices and do their best to succeed. Naturally, if they raise prices too high, nobody will buy them due to the basic principle of supply and demand, and so skyrocketing prices are rare. However, this also comes with the businesses having to enforce their prices on their own as well. Therefor, if a company such as Viacom chooses to raise their prices, it is up to them to make sure that the people they are supplying pay these prices. This is why Viacom is justified in pulling their product from the DirectTV distributer when it refuses to pay Viacom's rates, much like evicting a tenant for not paying rent.

Thus, as I have stated, Viacom is perfectly justified in enforcing its prices by pulling shows from those that refuse to pay them. Because this is a justified act, the statement "Viacom should not pull their channels just because custermers should not pay more on their bill" is false, and the resolution is negated.

my opponent's case

I will address my opponent's case in three different sections as he has listed them

1.) There are two flaws with my opponents arguments here. First, according to Direct TV itself, 17 channels were dropped, not 26 [1]. This isn't that big of a deal, but it's important that voters get a clear and fair picture of the issue at hand. Second, Direct TV is not "completely innocent", as it refused to pay Viacom for its new rates. The fault is not solely on Direct TV, but it is in no way completely innocent as my opponent claims. Furthermore, he does not back up this claim with any evidence, arguments, or anything really, so it is just an empty claim that doesn't stand in the round.

2.) My opponent claims that Viacom took the Daily Show and Colbert Report off of Hulu and other internet sites, and that this is wrong. However, Viacom is completely within its rights to remove them if and when they please as they are the provider that broadcasts the show. Furthermore, This argument has no weight because Viacom actually allowed the two shows to be watched on the internet shortly after they aired their first episodes after the break[2]. So not only was Viacom within its rights, they have already remedied the problem, and so this attack does not stand in the round.

3.) In this section, my opponent directly attacks Viacom, stating that they are "taking viewers hostage" and put the blame solely on DirectTv just so they can lose money. However, they simply cut DirectTV off from the shows they refused to pay for, just like the electric orl water company would cut off services when people refuse to play. Furthermore, their main goal in broadcasting the commercials in question is not to keep DirectTV from making money as my opponent suggested, but to make money. Just like when Geico tries to take customers from All State.

At the end of my case I'll finish with an attack on my opponent's source. I took the liberty of checking it out, and it is a site paid for, made by, and hosted by Direct TV with the sole purpose of discrediting Viacom in the DirectTV-Viacom feud. It is made less for information, and more for propoganda, and as such it should not be regarded as a valid source of information.

Of course I don't want to, but the bill per customer only rose a few cents, and is still under 3 dollars a month, so it isn't that much at all. However this debate isn't over whether or not customers want to pay more for services. This is about whether or not Viacom should pull channels from DirectTV services, and as you dropped every argument I posted about that, it's been proven that they are perfectly justified in doing so, and so saying that they should not is false.

VOTERS:Conduct: Because I put so much effort into the round 2 debate, and my opponent responded with a one-liner, I ask for the conduct vote as that's just rude and/or lazy.S/G: If you look at the spelling of the resolution, the random capitilization of my opponent in round 2, and the horrible grammar and spelling made by my opponent in round 3, it's evident that he lost the spelling and grammar vote.Arguments: My opponent dropped every argument I made in round 2, and as such I have proven that Viacom is justified in pulling channels and so the resolution is false and as such negated.Sources: My opponent only used one source in his argument, and that one was too biased (which he dropped so it's considered true for the round) to be considered an informative source. Therefor, since I'm the only one wo has posted viable sources, I respectfully ask for the sources vote

Reasons for voting decision: Arguments will go to Con since Pro never either offered his own argument or responded to Con's actual arguments. Pro posting only a single incomplete fragment of a sentence in R3 also didn't help his case. Sources also awarded to Con for using them in his arguments, none were provided by Pro. S/G is obvious. I couldn't understand a single thing Pro said for the most part, there was no punctuation, multiple spelling issues, and Pro rarely capitalized. Overall easy win to Con.